Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[1teepee] 24/3/2019 15:41

Would be great if we released a x4 capacity battery this year

[alchemy] 24/3/2019 15:30

Or the video above

[1teepee] 24/3/2019 15:06

hTTps://gnanomat.comCheck out the video below

[shavian] 24/3/2019 14:13

I have had this Spid on filter for ages, so it’s disappointing to have to read his drivel in the header.

[woodpeckers] 24/3/2019 13:50

I'm expecting the AECOM news to run over, from what we've gathered the deal has grown so it's to be expected that it may take a bit longer to formalise..I'd rather bigger and slight delay...

[bobsworth] 24/3/2019 11:25

Absolutely ! Here for the long term so not a problem if news updates are later . GLA

[serratia] 24/3/2019 09:20

I have doubts that the graphene will provide any significant benefits due to the tiny platelet size.

What a silly comment. Nanene has been tested by numerous majors in different countries and they all indicate the product works for them.

Making those kind of comments doesn't help your cause.

[superg1] 24/3/2019 07:38

No 1flynn, as I said his name is Adam (among others). I call him Adam as that is what he tried to hide behind.

Could be very damaging for his company. Highly relevant that VRS know, so I have informed them.

[1flynn] 24/3/2019 07:32

Is it fair to surmise Spid = Gregor?

[ewads] 24/3/2019 07:29

Spot on rheumking ; just like that fairytale word 'imminent'

[rheumking] 24/3/2019 07:10

Bobsworth indeed we have great things ahead of us but we shouldn’t build up hopes of specific time deadlines in my opinion as we make ourselves a hostage to fortune and a few new investors on here may be disillusioned. If it comes next week great if it’s a few weeks later so be it.

[spid81] 24/3/2019 03:29

Good Morning 500kv,

Yes I have read through the 2012 patent and it has been discussed on here previously,

I have no doubt that Versarien can manufacutre graphene. I have doubts that the graphene will provide any significant benefits due to the tiny platelet size

The following table from the Patent is a perfect example, to achieve the lowest number of layers results in a significantly smaller platelet size (graphene nano dot)



The image shows, after 30 minutes of grinding it achieve a 30nm lateral size platelet and is around 15nm in thickness (44 layers)

It takes around 3 hours to achieve 10 layers graphene which gives a lateral platelet size or around 15nm.

This is significantly smaller than the 2um (2000nm) average that is reported in the Nanene TD4.

The IP also states the the following

"the process of the invention preferably produces graphene in yields of at least 10 wt%, preferably at least 15 wt% or at least 20 wt% relative to the weight of graphite starting material."

The IP is now 6-7 years old. VRS have achieve larger platelet sizes as other research papers have used 5um graphene. It will be very interesting to see the Graphene's Council certification of VRS production facility. it should provide updated information on what percentage of Nanene is graphene vs graphite, what graphene yields the 3tpa unit achieves, and the average platelet size.

Source:

[500kv] 24/3/2019 01:17

To Spid & others
I would suggest you read the patent granted to Ulster University which I believe is licensed to VRS (having said that,I reiterate that the other patent family applications in Europe and China have not yet been granted.
Look particularly at claims 5, 6, 7 and 8 which describe the graphene quality that is produced by the patented process in USA.
Your concerns about BET measurement values on the VRS data sheet therefore seem to be irrelevant, although VRS may like to clarify the surface area measurement of 45m2/g.
I conclude that VRS has licensed a process to manufacture graphene having 2 to 4 layers and that the graphene may also comprise some amount of 5-10 layers (VRS data sheet states 60% <5 layers, 90% <10 layers). All 90% falling within the ISO Standard n'est-ce pas?
Can any others do the same?
Please advise as I am happily holding my VRS shares.

US Patent 9,139,439
The invention claimed is:

1. A process for the preparation of graphene or graphene-like fragments of another layered structure, said process comprising the step of mixing and grinding graphite or said other layered structure with at least one ionic liquid, wherein the process does not comprise a sonication step.

2. A process of claim 1 having a yield of at least one of graphene nanosheets and graphene nanodots of greater than 10% relative to the starting weight of the graphite or other layered material.

3. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein mixing and grinding occurs for a time period of between 0.5 and 4 hours.

4. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphite is natural graphite.

5. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphene is in the form of graphene nanosheets or graphene nanodots.

6. A process as claimed in claim 5, wherein the graphene nanosheets comprise 2 to 4 layers of graphene.

7. A process as claimed in claim 5, wherein the graphene nanodots have a height of 1 to 3 nm.

8. A process as claimed in claim 5, wherein the graphene nanodots have a diameter of less than 10 nm.

9. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ionic liquid comprises an organic salt containing one more cations selected from the group consisting of ammonium, imidazolium and pyridinium ions.

10. A process as claimed in claim 9, wherein the organic salt contains an imidazolium ion.

11. A process as claimed in claim 10, wherein the ionic liquid is 1-butyl-3-methyl-imidazolium hexafluorophosphate.

12. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the oxygen content of the graphene is less than 5 at %.

13. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process does not include the use of a reducing agent or an oxidising agent.

14. A process as claimed in claim 1 further comprising separating the ionic liquid from the graphene.

15. A process as claimed in claim 14 further comprising separating the ionic liquid from the graphene by means of addition of a solvent followed by centrifugation.

[evergreen8] 23/3/2019 23:58

post deleted

[sandbag] 23/3/2019 22:59

"and then you need standards for testing its performance as its mixed with other materials..."

Agreed Mike! Still a long way to go. That's why I think some companies won't wait for full ISO approvals.

[sandbag] 23/3/2019 22:51

mikebrenner 23 Mar '19 - 09:55 - 64655
0.010100
Just purchased and read ISO doc this am ... clear that graphene is single layer, 2D graphene material is less than 10 layer and anything above is bulk material (graphite). Lots of definition about quality, flake properties and measurement techniques which seems to align with previous NPL docs. Now need to understand process for bodies like the NPL to be accredited by the ISO for testing "graphene and 2D materials" ... bet that takes some time ... and then you need standards for testing its performance as its mixed with other materials...

" Now need to understand process for bodies like the NPL to be accredited by the ISO for testing "graphene and 2D materials" ."
===========================

sandbag - 07 Mar 2019 - 13:13:21 - 62903 of 64688 VRS The world lead in real Graphene (Nanene) - VRS
Re:ISO
Obviously any authority testing materials will need to be approved. So I would see the need for another document defining the requirements to be met by any testing authority.i.e. equipment required, qualifications of testers, etc.

As far as ISO is concerned there is still some way to go but I truly believe that some of the major players (AECOM, Tonghsu etc) will accept independent proof of quality and just get on with it.

[superg1] 23/3/2019 22:50

dg

Perfect that's the way it should be.

BUT I will say as I find things many don't. When the big reveal comes (not just one) I know ALL on here are not expecting it. Way beyond what we post about here.

Just let it happen. :-). The best way imo.

[dgduncan] 23/3/2019 22:46

I don't engage - just filter. Done my own research and believe no one else. Been caught out a few times in my past and now choose who and where I get an education from.

[superg1] 23/3/2019 22:44

I know lag, I do have them on filter.

[laginaneil] 23/3/2019 22:27

Hello Super,

You and everybody who are talking to spid etc are doing yourself a great disservice.

They are not invested here so don't talk to them !

It does not matter if graphene is thinner than Kryptonite you will just waste your
time talking to them.

The proof is in the pudding .. IT WORKS IN PRACTICE!

[superg1] 23/3/2019 22:26

Spring seems to have arrived

[timbo003] 23/3/2019 21:56

The last time SG went onto Hot Copper all of his posts were moderated. I would fully expect the same thing to happen again if he returns there for another attempt to spread his bile. He is totally incapable of having a reasoned or civil debate with anyone who expresses a view contrary to his own

[spid81] 23/3/2019 21:55

Graham, Superg1,

Can you please read section 6.2 of the ISO standards, it explains how Brunauer, Emmet and Teller method (BET) is used to determine the surface area,


"No Nanene doesn't have a surface area of 45m2"


WRONG GRAHAM IT DOES

Nanene TD5 (page 2 bottom of table) clearly states the Surface area is 45m2/g tested by BET which is the ISO method.